Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The same principle is at work with Hobby Lobby or a Catholic Arch Diocese not paying for a specific abortifacient drug or procedure in an employee's health insurance plan
And a perfect conflation of contraception and abortion.
If it weren't such an old tactic I'd say 10/10 for shilling but since it's exactly the same talking point as when the ACA was being debated I'll deduct a few points.
Government exists to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority
And it does this by forcing the moral viewpoint of a minority on the majority of course.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/30 19:10:38
I prefer to buy from miniature manufacturers that *don't* support the overthrow of democracy.
Xenomancers wrote: So it's okay to pull an article because you don't like the results of a study that was conducted using standard research protocols by a University professor?
Junk Science. LOL. Young people are influenced by their friends? That is junk to you? WOW.
Have you actually looked at the study and criticism of its flaws? Or are you just quoting from Ben Shapiro because he agrees with your political position? I'll give you a hint, I probably know a lot more about this one than you and the study is junk science. It's about a specific type of influence (nobody is publishing something as hopelessly broad and obvious as "young people are influenced by their friends") but it was conducted by interviews with the parents, not the kids, and it fails to consider alternative hypotheses to explain the observations. Even if there is something to be investigated here this study was not successful in doing it.
And you know what's funny? Your side of the political scale is perfectly happy to reject studies "conducted using standard research protocols by a university professor" when it comes to things like climate change, but suddenly when a study disagrees with "the left" the mere fact that it was a university study means it is the final authority?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Grey Templar wrote: And how many of the Guardian's shootings are related to Gang violence? I'd bet a huge chunk of them. It would also be good to list how many of those could have been stopped with any of the proposed legislation that the left always trots out. You'd see that number shrink dramatically.
Just perusing through their sources, it seems like the vast majority are Gang related. Which doesn't fit the narrative at all. Gang shootings are a problem because of Gang culture, not easy access to guns. These guys would, and do, murder each with other implements. Thats where the real focus should be on.
Irrelevant to the definition of a mass shooting. The Guardian is just yanking data from the Gun Violence Archive which includes sourcing for incidents. I’m looking through them now just to see and your claim that ‘most’ are gang violence related isn’t holding water. Paintsville KY not gang related. Detroit Feb 11 2018 not gang related. Parkland shooting not gang related. Colorado Springs not gang related though I guess law enforcement does get included in these things so I’ll have to surrender on that point. Garfield Heights not gang related do I really need to keep going on this?
What did you do? Google New Orleans Feb 13 2018 and stop? How very rigorous.
How very rigorous of you to cherry pick 4 high profile incidents out of a list of over 1600. What did you do? Just pick 4 that fit the media narrative perfectly and stop?
The Gun Violence Archive is terrible in and of itself. They don't list very much information about the incidents, motive, etc... So trying to make blanket legislation when these incidents have such varied causes, none of which are "had access to firearms", is stupid.
Having access to firearms doesn't make people want to kill each other. They have to have an actual reason first. Thats the cause. The gun is just a tool used after they've gotten a reason and decided to act upon it.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
LordofHats wrote: I think part of the issue is that "closely held private corporations" appears as a really flimsy and fickle standard, and that doesn't offer any meaningful distinction for employees or employers from company's that don't fit it except that it is convenient for certain parties.
That the end of the day the issue is that some people don't think an employer should be dictating how employee healthcare, and certainly not along the lines of the employer's religious convictions. It ultimately has nothing to really do with the case specifically outside of it serving as the standing example of something that people think is wrong. D-USA I think provides a firm example of the hypocrisy of the situation, in which private owners remove themselves from liability in their companies, yet complain about "spiritual" liability falling back on them because someone might want to buy some pills? It's kind of cheesy. Either the owners aren't liable for their company business or they are, but in the Hobby Lobby case they wanted it both ways. The law currently allows for that, but it's kind of a stupid law.
And that's just the specific example. More broadly why should my employer, who really has no business even knowing what my medical choices are unless they effect my work, have any right to dictate my healthcare? The conflict is born of the scheme in which employers end up paying a lot of the costs of healthcare premiums for their workforce but I don't think that's sufficient reason for a Hobby company to decide care options on the opinion of its non-Healthcare professional and non-liable owners. It's kind of grossly unfair to the workforce of that company.
At the same time I do find the idea of contraceptives being covered by health insurance to be kind of silly... but what if a company run by some Christian Scientists (or whoever it was) decides they don't want to cover vaccinations? That might not ever happen, but the precedent has been set and that's kind of a scary prospect.
The closely held private corporation term is definitely nebulous, so is the SCOTUS definition of obscenity. If a lot of people don't want employers dictating healthcare coverage then they really need to communicate with their representatives in Congress better. All employers are not required by law to provide health insurance and not all employees qualify for health insurance coverage for employers that are required to provide health insurance. Congress passed the Hyde Amendment in 1976 which Congress has renewed and expanded over time, most recently in the The No Tax Payer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017. Then Congress passed the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act in 1997 and in 2009 when the Affordable Care Act was passed it included the Stupak-Pitts Amendmenthttp://housedocs.house.gov/rules/3962/Stupak3962_108.pdf Add all that on top of a couple of centuries of court decisions regarding religious freedom guaranteed in Federal and State constitutions and that's how we got here.
Vaccinations are a tricky example because there are situations that meet the standard of a compelling State interest for vaccinations. It is legal for public school systems to require vaccinations of their students because it only takes one patient zero to start a polio epidemic, which supports the State's compelling interest to require polio vaccinations. Yet while there is support to require polio vaccinations for school students there isn't a program wherein the State gets to go door to door and forcibly inject polio vaccine into people's children because while there's a compelling interest for the State to vaccination children once they come into the public school system there isn't a compelling reason to violate all of the rights and laws that protect against such action.
If their was a global conflict and terrible people were in power in a country that was now trying to conquer the world and you got drafted into military service because we needed every able bodied person to help fight against this existential threat but you don't want to fight because your religious convictions make you a conscientious objector, that's ok. The State won't compel you to fight, you can take a noncombat role because your contribution as a combatant isn't significant enough to justify the State forcing you to violate your religious convictions.
The same principle is at work with Hobby Lobby or a Catholic Arch Diocese not paying for a specific abortifacient drug or procedure in an employee's health insurance plan. Not having something like abortifacient drugs covered by your employer provided health insurance plan doesn't prohibit you from accessing them it only requires that you pay for them. One of the drugs at issue in the Hobby Lobby case was the Plan B pill. That pill is available over the counter the same as hundreds of other medications and pills at a pharmacy/drugstore that aren't covered by health insurance plans because they're not contraceptives. What is the compelling State interest in forcing Hobby Lobby to cover the cost of over the counter contraceptives in violation of their religious convictions? Any woman, Hobby Lobby employee or not, with health insurance or not, can walk into the pharmacy and buy Plan B pills so what is the State's imperative in overruling the religious convictions of the Hobby Lobby owners?
What is the point of government? We don't want to live a nasty and brutal Hobbesian existence wherein might equals right. Government exists to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority and the most vulnerable minority is the individual. There should always be very high standard to establish a compelling State interest to force someone to take action against their will.
I’m not debating the legality. That is how the laws work out which is why I said the law was stupid.
Fair points and it does highlight why this issue is so contentious.
Yes the government should play a part in protecting the weak from the strong but it’s sillily to pretend the Goverment is the only strong one. Emploers hope a lot of power over their employees and we already acknowledge that part of the governments role is protecting employees from abuse by their employers.
The state has a compelling interest in public health and part of that is the integrity of doctor patient relationships. Hobby Lobby has no right to know what you and your doctor discuss and therefore has no right to dictate care.
I’d also argue it’s backwards to equate Hobby Lobby abiding by laws with the owners being forced to do anything. Hobby Lonby holds the obligation not the owners and these are distinct entities under US law and SCOTUS I think erred in overlooking that distinction. Not that they ignored it but they largely closed over it because of the nature of corporate personhood making it irrelevant which I don’t think is acceptable in the long term for an equal society.
The issue is that legally corporations are treated as persons which means that they can have “opinions” in a vague sense. That’s another part of how our laws have produced a stupid result imo. A corporation cannot hold a religious conviction, but under US law it’s treated as though it can and naturally Hobby Lobbies opinion is whatever the owners say it is even though in all other facets they are distinct from one another under liability laws.
And yeah. Americans suck at getting Congress to act and Congress sucks at acting. Most of this results from precident build ups over the past century that have result in what I’d feel bizarre and inequitable outcomes.
Xenomancers wrote: So it's okay to pull an article because you don't like the results of a study that was conducted using standard research protocols by a University professor?
Junk Science. LOL. Young people are influenced by their friends? That is junk to you? WOW.
Have you actually looked at the study and criticism of its flaws? Or are you just quoting from Ben Shapiro because he agrees with your political position? I'll give you a hint, I probably know a lot more about this one than you and the study is junk science. It's about a specific type of influence (nobody is publishing something as hopelessly broad and obvious as "young people are influenced by their friends") but it was conducted by interviews with the parents, not the kids, and it fails to consider alternative hypotheses to explain the observations. Even if there is something to be investigated here this study was not successful in doing it.
And you know what's funny? Your side of the political scale is perfectly happy to reject studies "conducted using standard research protocols by a university professor" when it comes to things like climate change, but suddenly when a study disagrees with "the left" the mere fact that it was a university study means it is the final authority?
Study did not claim to be fact. It noticed disturbing trends and suggested further research. Plus it did mention it's own limitations - the author called it out in her paper. I am certainly not a climate change denier. I stopped eating steak (my favorite food) to try and make a difference. Just pointing out both sides are willing to ignore science if it is not consistent with their Agenda.
We need to get rid of these stupid AF political parties so we don't have to chose between hypocrites.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/30 19:33:29
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Prestor Jon wrote: Please read them and let me know what parts lead you to believe that any corporation can remove any health care coverage they want from any plan offered to their employees because Jesus.
I never said they could. In fact, my whole point is that they can't remove whatever they want for whatever reasons. There's a specific exception for certain ideological issues that right-wing Christianity cares about, allowing a standard that would be unacceptable in other contexts. And there is no compelling reason to allow that different standard, other than right-wing Christianity having excessive influence.
Xenomancers wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/30/brown-u-pulls-gender-dysphoria-study-worried-that-findings-might-invalidate-perspectives-transgender-community.html
Brown U shuts down it's own research on subject because the findings -
"might invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community".
Very disturbing. PC culture shutting down scientific investigation.
They should have pulled it because it was junk science, regardless of who might be upset by it.
And oh look, if you go beyond Fox News and look at the original source you find that:
1) The research wasn't shut down. The study was finished and published, the only thing pulled was a PR article talking about the study.
2) The uiniversity's statement on the subject explicitly refers to concerns about poor experiment design. It also explicitly mentions how the authors of the study presented their work, specifically their failure to mention the limitations of the study. Once you have that context it clearly becomes a case of "this was junk science and we should have thought more about the people who could be hurt by it", not "THE TRUTH REVEALS OUR PC SJW CULTURE WE MUST HIDE IT".
Of course this shouldn't be at all surprising, given the fact that your source was a Fox News article quoting from an article by Ben Shapiro.
Want to explain what makes this junk science? The only critique I can make of the study so far is the small sample size, but since ROGD is supposed to be rare that isn't very surprising. They even bring up that they need a larger sample size for more study in the section talking about the limitations of the study.
I didn’t cherry pick. I started at the top of the list and went down then stopped because only one of the first six I looked at could even purport to be gang related which is evidently more effort than you put into your dismissal. I’m not going to spend hours parsing every mass shooting of the last five years when it’s obvious you didn’t even look before throwing out some nonsense response.
Something further showcased by how you apparently missed than the Archive includes links to news sources for each incident and I can click on them to get what information there are is. It’s redundant to include information on their own site when the link is right there.
And I’m not making a legislative argument. I’m pointing out that CRPC has junk stats because there are a hell of alot more mass shooting deaths and injuries in the US than were listed and it was really easy to confirm. With about 40 minutes of effort. All it takes to look through things and come up with a response that doesn’t make you look like a lout.
DrGiggles wrote: Want to explain what makes this junk science? The only critique I can make of the study so far is the small sample size, but since ROGD is supposed to be rare that isn't very surprising. They even bring up that they need a larger sample size for more study in the section talking about the limitations of the study.
Two things make it junk science:
1) The research methodology is poor at best. The study was conducted by interviewing the parents of the kids, not the people actually experiencing the thing they're studying. This is a massive red flag because third parties don't always see the entire picture. For example, something that looks "rapid" to an outside observer may have been building up internally for a long time and the only rapid change is becoming willing to tell someone about it. It's like if you did a study about a new pain medication, but instead of asking the people receiving it how much pain they were experiencing you asked their families how many times per day they complained about pain.
2) It fails to consider alternative hypotheses. To go with the rapid vs. building up internally issue, it doesn't sufficiently consider the possibility that the kids already had gender dysphoria but weren't really able to understand what they were feeling until they met people in a similar position and started learning about the subject. In that case yes, there is influence from peers, but it is more of the form "you should tell your parents about this". And a significant part of its conclusion of peer pressure seems to be based on citing the fact that the rate of kids claiming to be transgender is higher than what it "should" be, neglecting to consider the possibility that the rate statistics are simply wrong. And that's a very real possibility. Any statistic based on self-reporting by a poorly treated group is going to be biased downwards, and we know that a lot of LGBT people choose to repress their feelings because they want to be "normal". And peer groups are not random samples. People with similar interests/backgrounds/etc are going to associate with each other. So yeah, maybe 4 of 10 people in one particular group decided to come out together, and 40% seems like a very high number, but what if that group contains 4 of the 5 transgender people in the entire school of 500 students? Now the rate is only 1%, in line with expectations.
But of course the transphobic s are gleefully parading the study around as proof that transgender people "aren't real" and ignoring the massive red flags about its credibility from a purely scientific point of view. I don't think it's any coincidence that the source of the "controversy" quoted here is an article by Ben Shapiro that tries very hard to make the retraction fit his political beliefs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DrGiggles wrote: but since ROGD is supposed to be rare that isn't very surprising.
The whole point of the study and its acceptance by bigoted s is that it claims that ROGD isn't a rare thing, that it's some kind of common fad among "kids these days" that we need to care about. And of course, being the popular thing of the moment, it will all disappear soon when the kids move on to the next fad so we'd better not take any of their claims seriously.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/08/30 19:53:20
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
LordofHats wrote: I think part of the issue is that "closely held private corporations" appears as a really flimsy and fickle standard, and that doesn't offer any meaningful distinction for employees or employers from company's that don't fit it except that it is convenient for certain parties.
That the end of the day the issue is that some people don't think an employer should be dictating how employee healthcare, and certainly not along the lines of the employer's religious convictions. It ultimately has nothing to really do with the case specifically outside of it serving as the standing example of something that people think is wrong. D-USA I think provides a firm example of the hypocrisy of the situation, in which private owners remove themselves from liability in their companies, yet complain about "spiritual" liability falling back on them because someone might want to buy some pills? It's kind of cheesy. Either the owners aren't liable for their company business or they are, but in the Hobby Lobby case they wanted it both ways. The law currently allows for that, but it's kind of a stupid law.
And that's just the specific example. More broadly why should my employer, who really has no business even knowing what my medical choices are unless they effect my work, have any right to dictate my healthcare? The conflict is born of the scheme in which employers end up paying a lot of the costs of healthcare premiums for their workforce but I don't think that's sufficient reason for a Hobby company to decide care options on the opinion of its non-Healthcare professional and non-liable owners. It's kind of grossly unfair to the workforce of that company.
At the same time I do find the idea of contraceptives being covered by health insurance to be kind of silly... but what if a company run by some Christian Scientists (or whoever it was) decides they don't want to cover vaccinations? That might not ever happen, but the precedent has been set and that's kind of a scary prospect.
The closely held private corporation term is definitely nebulous, so is the SCOTUS definition of obscenity. If a lot of people don't want employers dictating healthcare coverage then they really need to communicate with their representatives in Congress better. All employers are not required by law to provide health insurance and not all employees qualify for health insurance coverage for employers that are required to provide health insurance. Congress passed the Hyde Amendment in 1976 which Congress has renewed and expanded over time, most recently in the The No Tax Payer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017. Then Congress passed the Restoration of Religious Freedom Act in 1997 and in 2009 when the Affordable Care Act was passed it included the Stupak-Pitts Amendmenthttp://housedocs.house.gov/rules/3962/Stupak3962_108.pdf Add all that on top of a couple of centuries of court decisions regarding religious freedom guaranteed in Federal and State constitutions and that's how we got here.
Vaccinations are a tricky example because there are situations that meet the standard of a compelling State interest for vaccinations. It is legal for public school systems to require vaccinations of their students because it only takes one patient zero to start a polio epidemic, which supports the State's compelling interest to require polio vaccinations. Yet while there is support to require polio vaccinations for school students there isn't a program wherein the State gets to go door to door and forcibly inject polio vaccine into people's children because while there's a compelling interest for the State to vaccination children once they come into the public school system there isn't a compelling reason to violate all of the rights and laws that protect against such action.
If their was a global conflict and terrible people were in power in a country that was now trying to conquer the world and you got drafted into military service because we needed every able bodied person to help fight against this existential threat but you don't want to fight because your religious convictions make you a conscientious objector, that's ok. The State won't compel you to fight, you can take a noncombat role because your contribution as a combatant isn't significant enough to justify the State forcing you to violate your religious convictions.
The same principle is at work with Hobby Lobby or a Catholic Arch Diocese not paying for a specific abortifacient drug or procedure in an employee's health insurance plan. Not having something like abortifacient drugs covered by your employer provided health insurance plan doesn't prohibit you from accessing them it only requires that you pay for them. One of the drugs at issue in the Hobby Lobby case was the Plan B pill. That pill is available over the counter the same as hundreds of other medications and pills at a pharmacy/drugstore that aren't covered by health insurance plans because they're not contraceptives. What is the compelling State interest in forcing Hobby Lobby to cover the cost of over the counter contraceptives in violation of their religious convictions? Any woman, Hobby Lobby employee or not, with health insurance or not, can walk into the pharmacy and buy Plan B pills so what is the State's imperative in overruling the religious convictions of the Hobby Lobby owners?
What is the point of government? We don't want to live a nasty and brutal Hobbesian existence wherein might equals right. Government exists to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority and the most vulnerable minority is the individual. There should always be very high standard to establish a compelling State interest to force someone to take action against their will.
I’m not debating the legality. That is how the laws work out which is why I said the law was stupid.
Fair points and it does highlight why this issue is so contentious.
Yes the government should play a part in protecting the weak from the strong but it’s sillily to pretend the Goverment is the only strong one. Emploers hope a lot of power over their employees and we already acknowledge that part of the governments role is protecting employees from abuse by their employers.
The state has a compelling interest in public health and part of that is the integrity of doctor patient relationships. Hobby Lobby has no right to know what you and your doctor discuss and therefore has no right to dictate care.
I’d also argue it’s backwards to equate Hobby Lobby abiding by laws with the owners being forced to do anything. Hobby Lonby holds the obligation not the owners and these are distinct entities under US law and SCOTUS I think erred in overlooking that distinction. Not that they ignored it but they largely closed over it because of the nature of corporate personhood making it irrelevant which I don’t think is acceptable in the long term for an equal society.
The issue is that legally corporations are treated as persons which means that they can have “opinions” in a vague sense. That’s another part of how our laws have produced a stupid result imo. A corporation cannot hold a religious conviction, but under US law it’s treated as though it can and naturally Hobby Lobbies opinion is whatever the owners say it is even though in all other facets they are distinct from one another under liability laws.
And yeah. Americans suck at getting Congress to act and Congress sucks at acting. Most of this results from precident build ups over the past century that have result in what I’d feel bizarre and inequitable outcomes.
I agree that the SCOTUS erred in attributing an unreasonable degree of personhood to the corporate entity of Hobby Lobby, that wasn't a good precedent and the Roberts court has set multiple bad precedents with corporate personhood.
I don't agree that the court decision let Hobby Lobby dictate healthcare options. The employees were still able to pursue just as many options the only change was that Hobby Lobby wasn't going to pay to cover the cost of 2 specific contraceptive medications.
The crazy thing about the Hobby Lobby case is that prior to the ACA taking effect Hobby Lobby voluntarily offered health insurance plans that covered the contraceptives that they filed suit to not have to cover when the ACA made the coverage mandatory. I can understand the significant difference between choosing to cover something and being compelled to cover something and fighting to maintain the high standard of a compelling State interest is a fight worth fighting but it really undercuts the religious objection argument.
NORMAN, Okla. - It is quite hard to take the claims by Hobby Lobby seriously. The main drugs in question in the case brought before the Supreme Court are the emergency contraceptives Plan-B and Ella. One huge problem with this situation is that up until 2012, Hobby Lobby provided them as part of their insurance plan. Only when they realized that Obamacare was going to mandate this coverage did they suddenly become interested in not providing these drugs.
In their initial complaint to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Hobby Lobby stated, “After learning about the current HHS mandate controversy...Hobby Lobby discovered that the formulary for its prescription drug policy included two drugs - Plan B and Ella - that could cause an abortion” (pg. 15, pt. #55). This is a huge indictment upon the Green family and Hobby Lobby.
How can they be expected to be taken seriously when the precise drugs they want relief from providing, they provided in the past? What does it say about their commitment to the “unborn” that they had no clue that they have been for years providing the drugs which they assert “can cause abortions”?
The Catholic Church, which has a long history of opposing contraceptives and abortions, claims that the issue is one of deeply held religious beliefs. The Catholic Church has a long and consistent history of opposition. Hobby Lobby, not so much.
Of course, as most people know, the nonsense goes further. The overwhelming majority of mainstream doctors and medical organizations scoff at the pseudoscientific claims that these drugs cause abortions. Even the official journal of the Catholic Health Association, Health Progress, came to the conclusion that Plan-B does not cause abortions.
So here is the situation that has not been fully described by most of the media: Not only did Hobby Lobby provide the drugs they now oppose until they learned of the Obamacare mandate, but the claims they make about the drugs being abortifacients have no basis in reality.
So what is the real nature of this case brought forth by Hobby Lobby? Is it a political maneuver made out of disdain for the current administration? Is it the ego of a billionaire who wants to shine in the spotlight of the Supreme Court? Are the Greens really that unaware of both their business and of science?
The Roberts court has made a few decisions that really strengthen corporate rights and personhood that are hard to justify. Corporations do wield to much power. In my life I have seen the physical big box stores like Walmart, Target, Home Depot and Lowes become giant national chains that wipe out competing small business everywhere and now online businesses, most notably Amazon, (64% of US households have Amazon Prime memberships) are attacking the big box stores and putting more strain on small businesses. The stock market goes up while wages and employment suffers. I'm not sure when we decided that a competitive free market meant protecting monopolistic corporations. We used to break up monopolies but now we have more consolidation than ever. It's not a good thing.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Corporations are people until it would be disadvantageous for them to be so.
Wonder how long til we have a young up and coming district attorney charge a corporate board for manslaughter when they run the company into the ground
Well Prestor I think we can continue to disagree about Hobby Lobby but eh what point? I think we’ve touched our respective points just fine so I’m content to leave it as we have it. There aren’t enough talks around here where neither side descends into disingenuous nonsense and I don’t want to ruin it by dragging it out till we’re talking in circles so yeah. I think let’s let it stand at where we’re at.
And yeah I think the issue of corporate personhood is only going to become more contentious going forward especially with elements of both political sides having their anti corporate/establishment bents in recent years grow. Our enforcement of our admittedly weak anti-trust laws is too lax.
Edit god damnit autocorrect is the worst thing in the world
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/30 20:25:29
Xenomancers wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/30/brown-u-pulls-gender-dysphoria-study-worried-that-findings-might-invalidate-perspectives-transgender-community.html Brown U shuts down it's own research on subject because the findings - "might invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community". Very disturbing. PC culture shutting down scientific investigation.
They should have pulled it because it was junk science, regardless of who might be upset by it.
And oh look, if you go beyond Fox News and look at the original source you find that:
1) The research wasn't shut down. The study was finished and published, the only thing pulled was a PR article talking about the study.
2) The uiniversity's statement on the subject explicitly refers to concerns about poor experiment design. It also explicitly mentions how the authors of the study presented their work, specifically their failure to mention the limitations of the study. Once you have that context it clearly becomes a case of "this was junk science and we should have thought more about the people who could be hurt by it", not "THE TRUTH REVEALS OUR PC SJW CULTURE WE MUST HIDE IT".
Of course this shouldn't be at all surprising, given the fact that your source was a Fox News article quoting from an article by Ben Shapiro.
Want to explain what makes this junk science? The only critique I can make of the study so far is the small sample size, but since ROGD is supposed to be rare that isn't very surprising. They even bring up that they need a larger sample size for more study in the section talking about the limitations of the study.
I gave it a cursory glance, and identified the following problems. A small, biased sample gives little scientific credence to the study, it is little more than the collection of anecdotes. The design of the tests themselves contain several flaws, such as highly ambiguous use of language, suggestive question design, several cases of "begging the question" fallacies and a way of distribution likely to lead to bias. The conclusions drawn by the researcher (that there is a phenomenon called "rapid-onset gender dysphoria" that is distinct from "standard" gender dysphoria) go far beyond what can be supported by her limited dataset, she appears insufficiently aware of the limitations of her dataset and fails to consider alternative explanations for her data. A broader, better designed study into this phenomenon will be needed before any conclusions of scientific merit can be drawn. This study could be a jumping-off point, but little more than that. It is certainly not something that warrants the attention of the loonies at Fox News, and I highly doubt that the university pulled an article about this study because it goes against their "political agenda" or anything, such as Fox News suggests. More like they just got a complaint about the article, looked further into the study, deemed it scientifically unsound and decided to remove the article about it. And considering that "rapid-onset gender dysphoria" is a term that is thrown around a lot by conservative anti-trans activists, it wouldn't surprise me that they got a complaint about it and took that complaint seriously once they figured out what it meant. I suspect but can not prove that the researcher had an ulterior motive beyond the pursuit of knowledge with this study. Background information on "rapid-onset gender dysphoria" and its use in anti-trans circles: http://theconversation.com/why-rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-is-bad-science-92742
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/30 20:24:56
d-usa wrote: So we got a giant tax cut and military pay raise, but now our budget can’t afford regular pay and locality pay increases for federal workers?
The GOP hates big government, unless those government employees are part of the largest military in the world.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Lets also not forget the military pay increase was nothing like what Trump claimed it to be either
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
DrGiggles wrote: Want to explain what makes this junk science? The only critique I can make of the study so far is the small sample size, but since ROGD is supposed to be rare that isn't very surprising. They even bring up that they need a larger sample size for more study in the section talking about the limitations of the study.
Two things make it junk science:
1) The research methodology is poor at best. The study was conducted by interviewing the parents of the kids, not the people actually experiencing the thing they're studying. This is a massive red flag because third parties don't always see the entire picture. For example, something that looks "rapid" to an outside observer may have been building up internally for a long time and the only rapid change is becoming willing to tell someone about it. It's like if you did a study about a new pain medication, but instead of asking the people receiving it how much pain they were experiencing you asked their families how many times per day they complained about pain.
2) It fails to consider alternative hypotheses. To go with the rapid vs. building up internally issue, it doesn't sufficiently consider the possibility that the kids already had gender dysphoria but weren't really able to understand what they were feeling until they met people in a similar position and started learning about the subject. In that case yes, there is influence from peers, but it is more of the form "you should tell your parents about this". And a significant part of its conclusion of peer pressure seems to be based on citing the fact that the rate of kids claiming to be transgender is higher than what it "should" be, neglecting to consider the possibility that the rate statistics are simply wrong. And that's a very real possibility. Any statistic based on self-reporting by a poorly treated group is going to be biased downwards, and we know that a lot of LGBT people choose to repress their feelings because they want to be "normal". And peer groups are not random samples. People with similar interests/backgrounds/etc are going to associate with each other. So yeah, maybe 4 of 10 people in one particular group decided to come out together, and 40% seems like a very high number, but what if that group contains 4 of the 5 transgender people in the entire school of 500 students? Now the rate is only 1%, in line with expectations.
But of course the transphobic s are gleefully parading the study around as proof that transgender people "aren't real" and ignoring the massive red flags about its credibility from a purely scientific point of view. I don't think it's any coincidence that the source of the "controversy" quoted here is an article by Ben Shapiro that tries very hard to make the retraction fit his political beliefs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DrGiggles wrote: but since ROGD is supposed to be rare that isn't very surprising.
The whole point of the study and its acceptance by bigoted s is that it claims that ROGD isn't a rare thing, that it's some kind of common fad among "kids these days" that we need to care about. And of course, being the popular thing of the moment, it will all disappear soon when the kids move on to the next fad so we'd better not take any of their claims seriously.
1) I believe the study acknowledged this point and I agree, it would have been helpful to interview the kids as well but getting them to participate would be difficult.
2) They discuss and acknowledged this in the last half of their "Hypothesis 1" in the discussion section of the paper.
Honestly it seems like you are more frustrated with how the results could be willingly misconstrued than you are with the paper itself.
d-usa wrote: So we got a giant tax cut and military pay raise, but now our budget can’t afford regular pay and locality pay increases for federal workers?
The GOP hates big government, unless those government employees are part of the largest military in the world.
Unless those members of the largest military in the world do the following:
1. Get captured
2. Actually ask for their V.A. benefits
3. Try to take their guns
4. Do not support the R-line on..... any issue such as transgender, Global warming, etc.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
So we got a giant tax cut and military pay raise, but now our budget can’t afford regular pay and locality pay increases for federal workers?
Good thing all federal workers are Democrats, so at least that shouldn’t hurt Trump.
It's biggest effect will be in certain red states where many government employees have a particularly high cost of living.
I wondered why my year end bonus was suddenly rocketed out the door on this pay period. I got $350. We're so overpaid.
He lost the court case last week to the AFGE, his EO where they stole our gak and denied us representation was deemed, some fancy legal word, what was it again, oh, right 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL' and a 'violation of the separation of powers'. Seems that part where Congress holds the Purse seems to be something ol Don is struggling to understand.
He lost again today, the Arbitrator ruled that VA misused Accountability Act in disciplining employees in an effort to stomp out the AFGE members within the VA.
He's invoking the national emerfgency clause to prevent the locality pay from going into effect. Anyone know what the emergency, other than his tax plan and refusal to obey the law, is?
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
The best part about his decision to block the pay raise is his statement about how it won't have any effect on the government's ability to hire people. At least Congress can still to him to shove it and give it to us, anyway, amirite?
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
So we got a giant tax cut and military pay raise, but now our budget can’t afford regular pay and locality pay increases for federal workers?
Good thing all federal workers are Democrats, so at least that shouldn’t hurt Trump.
It's biggest effect will be in certain red states where many government employees have a particularly high cost of living.
I wondered why my year end bonus was suddenly rocketed out the door on this pay period. I got $350. We're so overpaid.
He lost the court case last week to the AFGE, his EO where they stole our gak and denied us representation was deemed, some fancy legal word, what was it again, oh, right 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL' and a 'violation of the separation of powers'. Seems that part where Congress holds the Purse seems to be something ol Don is struggling to understand.
He lost again today, the Arbitrator ruled that VA misused Accountability Act in disciplining employees in an effort to stomp out the AFGE members within the VA.
He's invoking the national emerfgency clause to prevent the locality pay from going into effect. Anyone know what the emergency, other than his tax plan and refusal to obey the law, is?
Sounds like you are implying that this is not a budgetary decision to balance the budget like the tax cuts and military pay raises, but instead just a petty payback for daring to stand up for themselves?
Prestor Jon wrote: Please read them and let me know what parts lead you to believe that any corporation can remove any health care coverage they want from any plan offered to their employees because Jesus.
I never said they could. In fact, my whole point is that they can't remove whatever they want for whatever reasons. There's a specific exception for certain ideological issues that right-wing Christianity cares about, allowing a standard that would be unacceptable in other contexts. And there is no compelling reason to allow that different standard, other than right-wing Christianity having excessive influence.
The issue is that minority religions (like mine) have a higher hurdle to overcome (that our religion and belief is real) whereas if someone says something is against (right wing) Christianity then that's easily accepted. No one ever considers that a 'religious belief' of someone claiming to be Christian might not be sincerely held even if it contradicts the teachings and behavior of their prophet.
Prestor Jon wrote: Please read them and let me know what parts lead you to believe that any corporation can remove any health care coverage they want from any plan offered to their employees because Jesus.
I never said they could. In fact, my whole point is that they can't remove whatever they want for whatever reasons. There's a specific exception for certain ideological issues that right-wing Christianity cares about, allowing a standard that would be unacceptable in other contexts. And there is no compelling reason to allow that different standard, other than right-wing Christianity having excessive influence.
The issue is that minority religions (like mine) have a higher hurdle to overcome (that our religion and belief is real) whereas if someone says something is against (right wing) Christianity then that's easily accepted. No one ever considers that a 'religious belief' of someone claiming to be Christian might not be sincerely held even if it contradicts the teachings and behavior of their prophet.
Well, obviously a government can't just accept any belief or group as a religion (that would get really messy with laws and taxes etc.). So yes, being part of an ancient, traditional religion definitely has advantages, which includes the valid point you bring up that many so-called Christians are accepted as Christians even if they are in practice anything but Christian. However, Judaism or Islam get the same thing, so it is not an advantage for Christianity specifically, just one for established, old religions.
It still points out a flaw in the system. My religion is older than those three. Yet people (And likely jurors/judges) would not think I'm serious about my beliefs.
Prestor Jon wrote: Please read them and let me know what parts lead you to believe that any corporation can remove any health care coverage they want from any plan offered to their employees because Jesus.
I never said they could. In fact, my whole point is that they can't remove whatever they want for whatever reasons. There's a specific exception for certain ideological issues that right-wing Christianity cares about, allowing a standard that would be unacceptable in other contexts. And there is no compelling reason to allow that different standard, other than right-wing Christianity having excessive influence.
The issue is that minority religions (like mine) have a higher hurdle to overcome (that our religion and belief is real) whereas if someone says something is against (right wing) Christianity then that's easily accepted. No one ever considers that a 'religious belief' of someone claiming to be Christian might not be sincerely held even if it contradicts the teachings and behavior of their prophet.
There's nothing in the laws or court decisions that stipulates that only Christian religious beliefs are protected. Looking at just the system, the laws, decisions, etc. there's no bias. Once you introduce people into the equation yes there's flaws galore. There will always be flaws when people are involved and we see it with other issues too. You see people dismisses diseases, conditions, disabilities etc. as not being legitimate. The media plays this up all the time with articles like Look, somebody tried to bring a service peacock onto an airplane! Isn't that crazy!?!
The prejudice isn't built into the system it's built into the people. Your right to religious freedom is just as valid and important as anyone else's and the law should and does recognize that and if people don't recognize that truth then they're wrong and they're not enforcing the law correctly.
skyth wrote: It still points out a flaw in the system. My religion is older than those three. Yet people (And likely jurors/judges) would not think I'm serious about my beliefs.
Second. In truth, it's religious acceptance and freedom for popular religions in most cases.
It's one of the reasons I'm always delighted to see the Pastafarians and their antics of utilizing questionable religious protection laws to challenge their necessity and wisdom.
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
I’m a former “evangelical” and now I’m just a plain old normal Christian. I am always tickled pink when the satanists challenge some absurd new law that tries to justify the 10 commandments as some kind of monument by simply trying to put their own statue next to it.
3500+
3300+
1000
1850
2000 
s are gleefully parading the study around as proof that transgender people "aren't real" and ignoring the massive red flags about its credibility from a purely scientific point of view. I don't think it's any coincidence that the source of the "controversy" quoted here is an article by Ben Shapiro that tries very hard to make the retraction fit his political beliefs.
